ROGER A. POLAND, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY POLAND, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed a lower court's decision granting alimony unconnected with divorce, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error in the chancellor's factual findings regarding the divorce and alimony award.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to support the relief granted. No, the chancellor did not commit reversible error in finding the husband was not entitled to a divorce. No, the alimony award was not so excessive as to shock the conscience or demonstrate a misconception of principles.
“that all of the elements necessary for granting of relief under § 65.09, Fla.Stat. F.S.A., were presented for trial before the chancellor”
Establishes that the lower court had the necessary legal basis and evidence to consider the alimony claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant-husband appealed a decision granting alimony unconnected with divorce. He argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the relie…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Alimony Unconnected With Divorce cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal the defendant-husband urges: 1. the evidence was insufficient to support the relief granted (alimony unconnected with divorce); 2. the evidence was such that the husband was “entitled” to a decree of'divorce; 3. the alimony awarded was “unwarranted under the circumstances.” We are thus presented with a reargument of the equities involved.
We have reviewed the record and have determined: 1. that all of the elements necessary for granting of relief under § 65.09, Fla.Stat. F.S.A., were presented for trial before the chancellor; 2. the chancellor, as the trier of facts, did not commit reversible error when he found upon conflicting evidence that the defendant husband was not entitled to a decree of divorce; 3. the amount of the alimony awarded was not such as to shock the conscience of this court or demonstrate a misconception of the applicable principles by the chancellor.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Paris v. Kanella Paris, 232 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Anders v. Anders, 153 Fla. 54, 13 So. 2d 603 (1943); Stone v. Stone, Fla.App.1963, 151 So. 2d 301; Poland v. Poland, Fla.App.1959, 112 So. 2d 588; and Perry v. Perry, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 152.…